Veste

Partially upheld: account access failure and credit file reporting of missed payments complaint against ZILCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED trading as Zilch

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6263086 of 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00. account access failure and credit file reporting of missed payments complaint against ZILCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED trading as Zilch. Outcome: Partially upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6263086
Decision date2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00
FirmZILCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED trading as Zilch
Productbuy now pay later / credit account
Claim typeaccount access failure and credit file reporting of missed payments
OutcomePartially upheld
RemedyZilch Technology Limited trading as Zilch directed to pay Mrs F £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by account access issues. Payment to be made directly to Mrs F unless she indicates otherwise.

Summary

Mrs F complained to Zilch and the FOS about being unable to access her online account dashboard since 2024 due to loss of access to her original email address, which prevented her from managing her account. Although Zilch suggested a workaround (closing and reopening the account), Mrs F resumed using the account in April 2025 and subsequently missed payments, resulting in adverse credit file reporting. The ombudsman partly upheld the complaint, directing Zilch to pay £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience but refusing to order removal of the missed payment information from the credit file, finding it accurate and determining that Mrs F had reasonable mitigation options available to her.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that it was reasonably foreseeable that customers could lose email access and that this would cause harm by preventing account management. While compensation for distress and inconvenience was appropriate, the ombudsman determined that the missed payment information on the credit file was accurate and fairly reflected the account status. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs F could have reasonably mitigated the situation by closing and reopening her account (as suggested by Zilch in January 2025) or switching providers, rather than resuming use of the account in April 2025 knowing she could not manage it online. Additionally, Mrs F had alternative means of obtaining account information and making payments through phone calls and bank transfers, which she had previously used successfully.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
ZILCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED trading as Zilch, all decisions350%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website